Public Bill Committee

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]
Written evidence to be reported to the House
E29 Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE)
E30 Brian Lawler
E31 Catholic Education Service for England and Wales (CESEW)
E32 Campaign for Science & Engineering (CaSE)
E33 Accord Coalition
E34 Careers England
E35 Professor Margaret Maden and Dr Eric Wood

The Committee deliberated in private.

On resuming—

Charles Walker: Thank you, witnesses, for coming. We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of Learning Providers, the 157 Group, the Sixth Form Colleges’ Forum, the Association of Colleges, and Sir Mike Tomlinson. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill—ish—and that we must stick strictly to the timings in the programme motion. I hope that I do not have to interrupt mid-sentence, but will do so if I need to. May I also say to the panel that there are six of you, and we have 55 minutes in which to ask questions, so colleagues will direct their questions only to two named members of the panel? If we have all six of you answering questions, we will get nowhere.

Q 194194

John Hayes: Thank you, Chairman, and welcome witnesses. May I direct this to Frank and Martin? Reading your publications, gentlemen, I know that you “welcome the Government’s plans for ecologists”, that you are “immensely encouraged by announcements on apprenticeships”, and so on and so forth. How do you believe that the freedoms that we are giving colleges in this Bill will help you to deliver the Government’s ambition plan for apprenticeships?

Martin Doel:  I think the freedoms will be immensely valuable, John, in order to allow us to respond to the communities that are in front of us. I think they represent in many senses a continuity of policy from the outgoing Government, and it is one that colleges fully stand behind in terms of the importance of apprenticeships as valuable qualifications that combine work with learning. The extra freedoms to do that will be much appreciated.
If there is a sense that “The answer is an apprenticeship, now what’s the question?” and that is reflected in providing the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency with a statutory requirement to prioritise apprenticeships, the concern is that that might have the potential to work against the admirable additional freedoms that colleges have been able to give in response to their communities by effectively constituting another control mechanism. We are very welcoming, with only that slight remaining concern.

Frank McLoughlin:  If I could just add that I think the college sector has been a huge success story over the last 10, 12, 15 years, and I think this Government have recognised that. They have also recognised that it is a very mature sector, and therefore have given it—I think correctly—the kinds of freedoms that universities have, and we really welcome that.
The second point is that the apprenticeship is recognition that there is more than one route to success. Sometimes, if you read the press, you would assume that there is only the academic route to success: GCSEs, A-levels, universities. The work-based route to success—apprenticeships—is absolutely critical. I think it is the key to success for many individual young people, and frankly for the economy. If we get this right—and I think we are getting it right—UK plc will be a much better place in the future for that. We really welcome the freedoms.

Q 195

John Hayes: One further follow-up, and perhaps I can mix it up a bit, Chairman, because I don’t want to leave anyone out. Graham might want to comment, and another panel member of choice—

Charles Walker: It has to be a different question, not the same question.

John Hayes: It will be a different question. Independent learning providers obviously play a key role in this too, and they will enjoy similar freedoms. The Government’s aims, which I first set out in a speech at Frank’s college some five or six years ago, is to create a more responsive system—the kind of thing Lord Leitch and Andrew Foster speak about in the reports commissioned by the previous Government. How do you think the sector will be able to be more responsive to both learner choice and employer demand as a result of this Bill?

Graham Hoyle:  Thank you, John. I follow the comments we heard before welcoming the emphasis on apprenticeships. You are aware that independent providers are majority deliverers of that. I think the flexibilities, especially if they extend across the dual departmental role that you hold both within BIS and DFE, should enable us to look very closely at what I call pre-apprenticeship provision. I think the position of apprenticeship provision is well stated and well supported—it is totally supported by my organisation. I think we need to look very carefully at what we are doing for young people, especially 16 to 18—and pre-16—to make sure that they are properly prepared for the workplace and for ultimate entry into an apprenticeship programme on a progression route. I do not think that we are quite there yet. I am conscious that Alison Wolf is publishing her report today, but I have had no chance to look at it. Putting all that together would be critically important. The flexibilities, certainly at 19-plus and, hopefully, at 16 to 18, will enable us to look at those not yet ready for an apprenticeship, but where we actually need to make sure that they are.

Q 196

John Hayes: Mike, I am quite an admirer of your work on this subject. How far do you feel that creating a better relationship between schools, colleges and other providers will facilitate exactly what Graham has just described?

Sir Mike Tomlinson:  Without doubt, that relationship has been developing, but it needs to, and can in some circumstances, go further. I add employers into that mix. The provider has to be hand in hand with local employers, both large and small. It is important that the curriculum offered has relevance to the job in hand, and the job tomorrow, and that through the relationship there is an understanding that a skill set needs to be developed as well. Employers play a crucial part in that. The problem is how small and medium-sized companies can make that contribution, given the resource constraints upon them.
There is every reason to look at how one incentivises small and medium companies to participate in this crucial work. I suspect that, at the end of the day, the only way is through some form of tax system, which has been used for other parts of incentivising. That is crucial to free up that little bit of marginal resourcing in small and medium companies, which after all employ the largest proportion of people, just to help them to participate in both thinking about and developing courses and, in some cases, delivering them.

Q 197

Iain Wright: May I continue with Martin and David my line of questioning in the first sitting to heads of academies, particularly with regard to clauses 51 and 52, which extend academy status to 16 to 19 providers? What weaknesses does the provision address? How does it add value? Do you think that it is a good or a bad thing? Is not there enough choice in the 16 to 19 market anyway? What are your views on those particular clauses?

Martin Doel:  I would first characterise the 16 to 19 sector as the most competitive within education. The greatest plurality of suppliers already operates in this area, including independent learning providers, sixth-form colleges, general further education colleges and school sixth forms. Those are, significantly in the case of colleges and sixth-form colleges, autonomous institutions sharing many of the same characteristics as academies already. I would find it hard to see what part in the ecosystem 16 to 19 academies would fulfil, but if there is a clearly defined and a clearly argued deficit in an area that has not been addressed otherwise, and a proper process of consultation, I could not be closed to that possibility. But I find it hard to see what gap it is closing.

David Igoe:  We would broadly agree with that. There was provision in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill to stop the creation of any further 16 to 19 schools. Therefore, this is a reversal of that process, although we understand that 16 to 19 academies will not be schools. They will be joining the academy family. We have said for a very long time that sixth-form colleges, in effect, are academies in everything but name. In fact, we have more freedoms than academies. We have an additional freedom to borrow. We sometimes do not see that as a freedom that is of benefit, but at least it does give us the difference of autonomy.
The interesting point is that, if the ambition is to create the climate by which institutions really want to improve, the sixth-form college sector is a good example of that. We were freed up in 1993, and have grown and prospered, not in the number of colleges, but certainly in popularity, quality and delivery, and we also represent extraordinarily good value. The problem as we see it—I will be quite candid about this—is that at the moment there is no incentive to open a new sixth-form college for 16 to 19-year-olds because of the funding differential that will still exist between colleges and academies. Academies can benefit from VAT tax exemptions and other financial benefits that we still have to bear. At the moment, any due diligence on provision would mean that people would want to set up an academy before setting up a sixth-form college, which we think is a mistake, because we deliver a first-class, world-class product, and it would be crazy not to see us as a very important option for the future.

Q 198

Iain Wright: With your permission, Mr Walker, I think that the Wolf review, which will be published in about an hour’s time, is within the scope of the Bill, and I hope that I can mention that and ask Sir Mike and Frank about it. You might have only heard what was on the “Today” programme about the Wolf review, but it is relevant to the clauses in the Bill relating to 16 to 19-year-olds. Frank, I am particularly interested in the comment in your written submission that:
“Views on the Bill…Devaluing vocational qualifications unintentionally.”
How do you think that the Wolf review will add to the quality of standards for 16 to 19-year-olds?

Sir Mike Tomlinson:  I have not seen the report, obviously, so I can only go on what has been said in various newspapers. First, if as I understand it is being proposed that there should be a sensible balance between general education and vocational aspects of the course, that is a good move, because it continues to give a degree of flexibility for young people and does not in any way deny them a general education.
Secondly, and there have been some conflicting statements here, if Alison Wolf is saying that a vocational course—the first thing is to distinguish between vocational and applied, which are not the same; one is often used as a term to mean the other, which is not right—has to have some element of on-the-job experience, that would be a step forward, because an awful lot of vocational provision at the moment does not have the young person in the employment situation in any way. No other country that I know of would allow a course to be called vocational without having that element.
If we can get those things right, which I believe we can, and have employers involved, we can have good vocational routes. They have to be simplified, and there has to be progression—that is the other thing Alison Wolf is going on about. Too many young people are sold short on some vocational applied courses, because they are not given progression. In some cases, having done level 3, they are not given progression to university, if that is their choice. She is right to focus on that.
We should end up with vocational provision that is valued in its own right. Let us stop comparing it with something else to give it credibility; its credibility comes from what it is in its own right. That is what I hope will come from the Wolf review, and the rethinking and policy development around vocational. But I have left out applied, which really needs sorting out.

Frank McLoughlin:  Just to build on Mike’s comments, the point that I made in my submission was that too often the focus is on the traditional academic route, and everything else is an afterthought. The focus is on the academic route, frankly because that is what most of us have been through. But that is not what most young people go through, so we have to pay as much attention to the work-based and vocational routes as the academic route. As I have said, the Government are doing a good job in its thinking around that.
I have not read the report, but I met Alison Wolf and gave evidence to her for her report. I think that it is much more nuanced than we heard this morning on Radio 4, which frankly just rubbished the entire vocational spectrum from NVQs to HNCs and HNDs. We need to split them out. If I can leave you with just one thought today—there are three routes to success. There is the traditional academic route, which we all understand. There is the work-based apprenticeship route, which is a fantastic development, with lots of interest, and which we need. But that is not an issue solely for colleges. The main issue is about getting employers to join up to the apprenticeship route—I think Alison Wolf will reinforce that.
The third route, high-quality vocational qualifications which are work-related, is incredibly important for young people. We send, through our BTEC national science route, many students to HE, including to pharmacy—Alison Wolf was saying King’s College London. They have got to be high-quality, rigorous and work-related, and I think that that is what we will hear. My understanding is that there was a question about NVQs, but I think her report like many others will commend the BTEC First-BTEC National-HNC-HND route, which is a critically important route to success for young people.
I hope we do not have a knee-jerk response and try to find some other new structural solution from the top down, which always failed in the past, frankly. I remind you of GNVQs, which came from above and did not work, so we must not run for a new structural solution, but must have some trust in the colleges and employers to sort this thing out.

Charles Walker: Right, I am now going to go to Mr Brennan. As Chair, I am quite keen to hear what Sue Whitham has to say—to remind colleagues that we have six panellists.

Q 199

Kevin Brennan: I just wanted to ask Martin Doel about the apprenticeship guarantee and its withdrawal. It was intended, obviously, to give the system a bit of a poke, and to put a bit of stick in there for driving apprenticeship availability. By taking it away, is there any danger that the system will lose a bit of that poke?

Martin Doel:  We are always unconvinced about that stipulation, since an apprenticeship is integrally the combination of someone who is providing the training, an employer, and the student. The employer could not be controlled by the legislation. While it might have sent a signal, as a legislative condition, we were never persuaded that that in itself would actually produce the outcome. It sends a signal, but there are other equal signals being sent by Government about the importance of apprenticeships to employers. Clearly—I think I echo some faults that were stated earlier—the financial encouragement to employers becomes important in this, and that stimulus will be equally important in the future, and ought to encourage them to support the apprenticeship offer.

Q 200

Kevin Brennan: On the basis of whether legislation should be for sending signals or not—a little bit of a debate in this Committee—I want to ask a question of Frank, as a practitioner perhaps, but Sue might want to comment, because we have not had an opportunity to bring her in yet, and I apologise for that. Are you aware of the provisions in the Bill around discipline in further education colleges? Is almost identical provision in legislation around search powers and so on appropriate for further education colleges, which are all-age institutions, and for their teaching staff? Such provision includes being able to confiscate an electronic device from a student, to go through all the data on it and to delete that data before returning or disposing of the device—all provisions in the Bill. Do you have any concerns about the practicality of how the legislation is currently worded? We will need to scrutinise this, but my fear is that good headlines often make bad law.

Sue Whitham:  This is from the sixth-form college perspective and not the GFE perspective. For sixth-form colleges, we would want the same powers that the Bill gives to schools, because we are dealing in the main with 16 to 18-year-olds. On how those powers are used, we would expect guidance, but we believe that the same powers should be available to senior management in sixth-form colleges.

Frank McLoughlin:  I agree with that. I think the same powers should be there as are there for schools for young people under 19. I have 4,200 young people in my college, but I cannot think of more than a handful of occasions in the past 10 years that I have been the principal when we would have wanted to use those powers. It is about how you run it—the culture of the place, running a safe and secure organisation. So although the powers are there, I can think of very few cases in which we would need to use them. But to have them applied in the same way is useful across all providers.

Q 201

Kevin Brennan: Would there be any merit in introducing an upper age limit on the powers when you are dealing with educating older adults?

Frank McLoughlin:  We are an inner city, inner London college—it is about how you run the place. I cannot see us using the powers. We do not have knife arches, which some American colleges and schools have. I cannot see when we would need to use them, Kevin, if I am honest.

Q 202

Graham Stuart: Should qualified further education teachers be able to teach in secondary schools?

Charles Walker: Who are you addressing that to?

Q 203

Graham Stuart: Who looks most enthusiastic? David?

David Igoe:  In short, we have argued that for a long time. Many qualified teachers in our sixth-form colleges are recruited from the school sector, so transferability is second nature to us. There are issues about qualifications, but I know that is not in the remit of the Bill. There is a big question about what are appropriate qualifications and teaching qualifications. Clearly there must be some standards and safeguards. But in general, we would argue for completely open transferability for those teachers who are teaching—particularly in the 16 to 18 bracket—between schools, colleges, general further education colleges and other forms. We do not see any reason why there should be artificial distinctions or barriers at the teaching or management level. We have had a lot of nonsense, particularly at principal and head teacher level, about being able to transfer from schools with large sixth forms to sixth-form colleges and vice versa. That whole area needs to be looked at.

Sir Mike Tomlinson:  May I just go back? One of the crucial elements of any of our education provision is the quality of the teachers and their experience in delivering that which they are expected to deliver. In vocational education, you want people who have real vocational experience and expertise, but also teaching expertise.
At the moment, the system is odd in that if you do not have qualified teacher status, but you have all that I have just mentioned, you can teach in schools only as an instructor. I would like a single framework of qualifications that links QTS and qualified teacher learning and skills with bridging provision, so that people can move across. We want those who are most skilled and knowledgeable teaching our young people, which means that we cannot afford to have arbitrary and rather unfortunate distinctions between the ways in which they can be employed. We do not have enough talent to waste; we have got to make use of it sensibly—so I am all for it. As a side issue, the loss of funding for FE teacher training is somewhat unfortunate given the emphasis that we are putting on that side of training.

Q 204

Graham Stuart: Young people and parents do not realise that what someone described as a virtual satchel of cash is available for them at 16. They can use that up by taking certain courses, some of which lead on somewhere and some of which end up as cul-de-sacs. Yet they find themselves unable to access certain apprenticeships or courses because that money has been used up. Do you recognise that as a problem? Is there any indication that the Government have recognised it as such and are doing something about it? Is the Bill the opportunity to do so? I shall address that to Martin—you look least enthusiastic.

Martin Doel:  The Wolf review has something to say about that— importantly, about the value of public information and students understanding precisely what course they are following, where it leads to, and its benefits. Public information is an essential part of and lubricant to the system, in addition to information, advice and guidance.

Q 205

Graham Stuart: I want to ask Frank the same question. I think I am right in saying that if you have two 18-year-olds, and one has done a diploma and one has done an A-level, the diploma student has little money left in their virtual satchel to undertake certain courses, compared with the A-level student, who has a full satchel. That seems unjust. Is that your understanding, Frank?

Frank McLoughlin:  No. I don’t think funding is as simple as that. The key bit is advice for 14 to 16-year-olds and younger pupils on the routes to success. As we have said, most people and most teachers understand the academic route, but the vocational and work-based route is not well understood. The Government have, as the previous Government did, put a lot of emphasis on impartial advice. It has to be there, because it could get worse unless we recognise and resource the importance of young people getting the right information and evidence on where those qualifications take them. That focus on destinations, whether it is into work or on to higher education, is absolutely critical, to give them the information to make better informed choices.

Charles Walker: On that point I will indulge you, Mr Stuart, because I know you want to ask a quick supplementary, but I really want a short answer.

Graham Stuart: I was fooling you with my body language in suggesting that it was a supplementary. It was an entirely different question that I wanted to ask. Over to you, Chair.

Charles Walker: Right. Julie Hilling.

Q 206

Julie Hilling: I want to follow up on that and ask Mr Hoyle and Mr Doel what your current relationship is with the Connexions service. What effect do you see the Bill having on careers advice?

Graham Hoyle:  The direct link with Connexions varies around the country. That is because of the nature of the separate Connexions services. The key point on the Bill is the extent to which good information, advice and guidance on apprenticeships and other routes is made available to all young people. There is a question mark over whether that will apply to academies, which concerns me. We have to ensure that in all pre-16 institutions there is access to independent advice and guidance across the whole range for everybody—that is paramount. I am not sure that that is locked in the Bill.
Supplementary to that, I am concerned that the career service—if I can call it that, because that term went into some disuse—which is often delivered by Connexions, is under threat on the back of the cuts to local authority funding. The amount of money going into that service seems to be patchy and disappearing. The universal careers service was always, in my view, going to be the foundation of any all-age guidance service. We are now moving towards that, I am glad to say, but I am worried that the foundations on which that will be built are being torn down at the same time. We must get critical information to all young people on a completely impartial basis, but there must be a comprehensive service for all young people as well, to build an all-age service.

Martin Doel:  I have little to add to what Graham has said. The only points I would make are one on emphasis and a second on the assurance that that advice and guidance has been provided. I find it hard to see from the Bill as it currently stands how the Government will assure themselves that all young people have received this information and guidance from schools. On Graham’s second point, we share the concerns about funding being stripped out of Connexions ahead of a new service being put in place. We have concerns on whether the resources will be there to enact the Government’s intentions when they are eventually put into legislation.

Q 207

Julie Hilling: Following on from that, you are talking about pre-16 careers guidance, but what about your role and responsibility in post-16 careers guidance, where students still need guidance about where they can go with the route they are on?

Julie Hilling: Can somebody volunteer?

David Igoe:  I will volunteer. There is a bit of an issue at the moment because in the FE sector there has been a cut in the funding for entitlement and enrichment activities. Part of that affects internal careers advice and guidance and support services, and the concern is that we will not be able to provide the comprehensive service that we currently provide. In the case of sixth-form colleges, much of our advice and guidance is about progression to HE and into employment. We are very concerned that the quality of that will now be diminished because we will not have the means to provide it.

Q 208

Stella Creasy: I wanted to follow up on concerns that have been raised by panellists in their evidence regarding participation in further and higher education, and the impact that some of the changes both in the Bill and in a broader context might have. Frank, as somebody who trains many of my constituents from Walthamstow, could you say a little about the concerns that you set out regarding changes to the education maintenance allowance and the introduction of fees? Can you say how the fee system might work in further education for some of your pupils, and what you think is the right way to go about it?

Frank McLoughlin:  We are very concerned as a sector about the removal of the education maintenance allowance. It has been hugely successful for us. The suggestion is that students will still come whether the EMA is there or not. That may be the case, but it is about whether they can fully participate once they are in the system. The EMA allows students to travel to college, buy lunch and—critically—to buy books and go on educational visits. These are young people from poor families. Seventy per cent. of our students are young people in receipt of EMA and their family income is less than £18,000 a year. It is not about whether they will come in September and enrol, it is about whether they can fully participate in the programme for one, two or three years. I am very worried about that. One reason people pay to send their children to the independent sector is because of some of the enriching things that those schools offer.
There is also a suggestion that the enriching funding into colleges will be removed, and that is as worrying. How do we raise the aspiration of young people if we cannot get the money to take them on visits? We send significant numbers of students to Russell group universities all over the country. How do we get them there if we do not have the money to take them on trips, and if students cannot do the additional bits such as the Duke of Edinburgh award and all those things that admissions officers in universities want to differentiate between young people? We will be back to saying that it is the basic course and no more. When we say that there is no money, we mean there is no money. We understand that the climate is very different and that funding is tight, but my worry is that this will have a big impact on the retention of students and their achievement. They will come, but it is about whether they are as successful. That is the critical point.

Q 209

Stella Creasy: Martin, you made comments in your evidence about clauses 70 and 71, and the introduction of capping for part-time fees and the loan interest rates. Will you say something about how you think those things could be improved to deal with some of the problems that Frank was talking about, and about whether people will be able to participate given the financial constraints that they might be under?

Martin Doel:  If you are talking about higher education capping for part-time fees, our great concern is that the system has been designed to meet the needs of full-time, three-year traditional students. It has a number of entry points that are very limited and a long lead-in period to getting those loans, and that will not be well suited to be extended to part-time students who join in a more flexible way and study over a longer period. Therefore, the system will need to be adapted to fit that less-traditional route of study.
Frank was talking about the EMA. It is getting perilously close to the last point at which you can tell students what the arrangements are for them next year. It is interesting to note that the changes around higher education fees have been signalled at least two years in advance, and time has been given to design a support system to meet those needs. There has also been a long consultation about it. For the EMA, students are about to start this September, but we still have no system of support defined for poor students who are 16 to 18. They have already come to the college, asking about the course that they are going to go on to—before Christmas, in many of the recruitment evenings—and colleges have not been able to tell them what support arrangements will be in place. We absolutely must have a scheme in place before the end of the Easter vacation. Students and their families deserve to know what support arrangements will be in place for their study.

Q 210

Stella Creasy: Regarding the proposals on participation, what would you like to see in the Bill to reflect some of your concerns? Are there any changes you would like to see in the proposals?

Charles Walker: Can you address that to someone who has not spoken yet? Just one. Who would you like?

Stella Creasy: I will ask Graham, because he is looking on edge.

Graham Hoyle:  I am not sure that I can contribute to that question.

Charles Walker: Will someone who can contribute and who has not spoken, please help my colleague? Sue, is that in your line of work?

Sue Whitham:  It is not particularly an issue. I think sixth-form colleges are concerned about the EMA, and we are concerned that we need to resolve those issues quickly.

Frank McLoughlin:  The Government have spoken about a replacement fund for the EMA. We need to understand what that is and, most significantly, how big it is. Initially I think it was said to be around 10% of the current pot of money in the EMA fund. We need to know quickly what that replacement fund is, its volume, and how we can use it. I think that it is unlikely to be an entitlement fund, where we pass money to young people as we currently do, but probably much more about safety netting. Whichever it is, we need to know, as Martin said, so we can begin to plan for that for next year.

Q 211

Stephen McPartland: I have two quick questions. The first is addressed to Frank McLoughlin and Sue Whitham. The Government are committed to an all-age careers service. Would you welcome the suggestion that we move towards a more professional service that would be able to give good indications on the opportunities for children to follow vocational guidance, rather than the current system under Connexions, which talks more about lifestyle and is generic?

Frank McLoughlin:  Frankly, careers advice has been an issue since I was at school. No one has ever got it completely right, but I think the Government recognise that it is critical. To answer your question, absolutely, we must. One of the things that we must avoid is giving young people poor advice that is often based anecdotally on a teacher’s experience of their own time at school and university. Frankly, too many people’s references are appropriate to that period. When people think about apprenticeships, they think about the 1970s, but the world has changed entirely. In London, some of the league stuff still holds true—50% of jobs in London will be graduate-level jobs. Whatever the situation is, we need to prepare people for a different world. What will the world be like for young people in 2030? There are too many people talking about what the world was like in 1970. Yes, it must be professional—it is critical. If we do not get that advice right, we are just wasting human resources and money.

Sue Whitham:  I totally endorse that. I also think that we need to set up a service that we think is appropriate and then almost leave it alone for a while. Connexions has in recent years suffered incredibly, inevitably, from being reorganised and restructured countless times. So we need now to concentrate on what we feel is an appropriate service, let it do its work, and keep it under review. However, it needs to be a structure that is left alone for a while, because, as Frank has said, it is not only a case of money being wasted. We are talking about young people’s lives, and you are always aware that where a part of the system has failed, quite a few young people will have been affected during the course of that failure.

Q 212

Stephen McPartland: My second question is for Sue, again, and for Martin. In my area, everybody recognises that sixth-form colleges and further education colleges are among the most innovative of providers because of the freedoms that they were given some years ago. Do you feel that the Bill provides you with more freedoms to work more closely with local schools? In my constituency of Stevenage, the college is considering a proposal to provide the careers advice service for all the schools and the college, because it sees itself as part of the schools community network, and because it has some vocational courses. It wants to work with schools rather than compete against them. Do you think that the Bill gives you such opportunities?

Sue Whitham:  Yes, we have the freedom to develop such contacts between colleges, and between colleges and schools, which is something that has developed particularly in recent years. With the direction that we were going in, that all came under the local authority, and the 14 to 19 partnerships were developing quite strongly. Although we do not have to follow that particular route now, we would encourage sixth-form colleges to do so. They need to work with as many colleges and local schools as they can for whatever provision is needed locally, and they need to work together on that. Such structures have started, a lot of them are working very well, and we have certainly encouraged all sixth-form colleges to stick with it and resolve those issues in whatever way is sensible for the area. Obviously, that will vary from area to area.

Martin Doel:  In answer to your question, the Bill provides such opportunities. My concern, if there is one, is that in a time of economic retrenchment, there is a danger that people will seek to withdraw into their own institutions. I am certain that colleges would not wish that to happen; they would wish to work in partnership with their schools to the benefit of young people in their areas, and to provide those varied pathways to success. In that regard, returning to your earlier question, information, guidance, and giving young people the information that they need to navigate the system most effectively becomes important, not only for them, but to sustain partnership working, because it induces that kind of direction of travel.

Q 213

Tessa Munt: I would like to address my question to Martin and to Sir Michael. I wanted to ask you briefly about what I see as being a conflict over the supply into colleges and sixth forms, where you have schools with sixth forms—clearly, funding follows pupils, so there is an interest in keeping hold of pupils. There is a concern, however, where schools are moving GCSEs into year 10 and starting students on A-level courses in year 11, and where there is not a meshing of the examining boards between the schools and local colleges. Therefore, you are trapping young people, or they are wasting a year—you are trapping them into the school because they need to carry on with the second year of their A-level in the lower sixth effectively, or they waste that year of extra tuition. I feel that that is something that will restrict subject choices severely, because often, schools do not offer the very broad spectrum of subjects that people can take, which eventually, will restrict life choices, job choices, and everything else. How do you see that being cured in some way?

Martin Doel:  You have made a powerful case for partnership working between schools and colleges, and for colleges having a role in assisting schools to deliver in such areas, and working co-operatively to do so. It seems that having specialist teachers and lecturers from colleges going into schools, or having young people released from schools to study at the most appropriate level for them, with expert teachers in good facilities, is a solution to the issue that you have identified.

Q 214

Tessa Munt: Does that mean in some way sorting out the exam board so that they are broadly similar? Can there be that move across, or does it mean something else, because where funding follows pupils in order for schools to keep their staffing at the same level, they cannot lose those pupils to another provider?

Martin Doel:  Do you want me to answer the supplementary question too?

Charles Walker: Very briefly.

Martin Doel:  The arrangement to ensure that colleges receive funding in order to do that work on behalf of the schools is as important as the qualifications awarding body. We do not currently have a match between the funding arrangements for schools and those for colleges post-16.

Sir Mike Tomlinson:  In part this does link back a little with the point on careers education and guidance. It is true that, in some cases, young people are advised to take up an A-level course and remain on it when that is not the most appropriate route for them, and the provision that is then in school is often not really appropriate either. So, as Martin has said, it requires close work between schools, colleges, and also employers, who are all too often left out of the equation.
It is therefore crucial that for young people—even if they do their GCSEs a year early—their options remain wide and open as a result of co-operation between schools and colleges. It requires that funding is available to enable the colleges to make that provision in a cost-effective way, without meaning that the school itself will lose staff as a consequence. So it can be solved, but at the local level, and by the sorts of co-operative arrangements that have grown up over the last few years and are very strong in some cases. I am not sure what the problem is that you are worried about with exam boards.

Q 215

Tessa Munt: Where the college uses a different set of exam boards—so the school sets somebody off on an A-level course in XYZ direction, and the college only does ABC. Therefore there is a mismatch; you cannot transfer from year one to year two of your A-level in a different place. This needs extremely strong independent careers advice in schools, very early—

Sir Mike Tomlinson:  Indeed.

Tessa Munt: So that people understand the implications and probably just resist the temptation or the school’s direction to go on to—

Sir Mike Tomlinson:  As I said in my opening comments, it is certainly the case that the careers education guidance element is very important, and it is important well before 14—a lot of decisions are made at that age now—so that is crucial. As far as the boards are concerned, most schools and colleges work with a very wide range of boards, not just one. Some colleges that I know of might be working with 40-odd different awarding bodies, so it is not a single pathway. If you pick on A-levels, there needs to be proper attention given to ensure that all A-levels in a particular subject have a common core related to the needs of higher education in general. That is not happening, and it is a weakness of our system.

Charles Walker: Thank you very much. We have six minutes left and I have three colleagues who want to ask one brief question each. Iain Wright, John Hayes, then Julie Hilling.

Q 216

Iain Wright: A brief question to Sir Mike. The Bill repeals the diploma entitlement—will that prove to be the death knell for diplomas?

Sir Mike Tomlinson:  No, not necessarily. Like any other qualification the diploma will live or die by the quality of its provision and its credibility among its end users, whether they be further education, higher education or employers. In some cases, that promise could not have been fulfilled, particularly in rural areas. It might have been an aspiration but it could never have been a reality. The important thing is that they will survive because they are valued. If they are not, then they will not survive.

Q 217

John Hayes: Martin, you have spoken about the issues around funding, budget lines, and the capacity of colleges to move money around—indeed, the Bill gives them capacity to borrow as well as to invest. How important is that going to be to meet the new challenges that colleges will face?

Martin Doel:  The additional payments will be very important to colleges in order to adapt to the difficult funding circumstances they find themselves in. Operating flexibly within an overall budget gives the person closest to the point of delivery the greatest ability to make sensible efficiencies in order to deliver the output. So that, I think, is a nostrum which is exactly the right one for the time we find ourselves in. Therefore, it is important to have the freedoms.

Q 218

Julie Hilling: A question to Ms Whitham: what is the effect on the post-16 sector of the abolition of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body?

Sue Whitham:  That body was set up specifically to conduct national negotiations for school support staff. We have our own negotiating arrangements for teaching staff and support staff in sixth-form colleges. We were following developments, but, in fact, there will not be any impact on our work nationally. For instance, our negotiations with Unison for support staff have always been totally independent. The developments will not, therefore, have any bearing on us.

Q 219

Graham Stuart: Clause 65 gives the Secretary of State the power to suspend the apprenticeship offer for up to two years. Given the change to a situation in which a person needs to have an employer prepared to offer them an apprenticeship in order to get one, can you see any purpose to this clause? If there is a young person with an employer who wants to pursue an apprenticeship, in what circumstances would it be necessary for the Secretary of State to suspend the apprenticeship offer?

Graham Hoyle:  I can’t immediately think of one. In an earlier question the point was made about taking away the right or entitlement away. The entitlement was always a difficult one because of the employer element within it. It was quite difficult in earlier days to give an absolute entitlement to a young person to an apprenticeship if you could not find an employer with an employment opportunity. So I can’t imagine a situation in which one would want to suspend the apprenticeship offer.

Q 220

Graham Stuart: Do you agree, Martin? Is it a hangover from the former legislation?

Martin Doel:  I must confess to not knowing the clause sufficiently well to try to understand it, but I think the only case in which that might apply is one where there was a problem with quality in terms of the provider and/or the employer’s behaviour in relation to the employee. It would, therefore, potentially have some value in quality terms, but to understand it better I would need to know the statutory guidance which went with it.

Charles Walker: Any colleagues have any further questions?
Can I thank the panel for being short, sharp, concise and informed? We have got through a lot of business. Thank you very much.
We will now hear evidence from the Young People’s Learning Agency and wrap things up no later than 10.25.

Charles Walker: I shall now allow the panel to have at you. Who would like to go first? The Minister.

Q 221

Nick Gibb: Welcome to the Committee, Mr Lauener, and thank you for taking the time out to give evidence about the Bill.
Do you think that it is right that the Secretary of State should seek to make himself more accountable for the functions that are currently carried out by the Young People’s Learning Agency which you lead?

Peter Lauener:  Nobody should have been surprised by it. There has been so much discussion in the run-up to and post the election, and I entirely understand why the Secretary of State has decided that that is the right thing to do. The board of the Young People’s Learning Agency has discussed it, is entirely happy with the decision and is working towards a very smooth transfer of responsibilities, being completely committed to seeing it through to April 2012, which is the point at which we expect it to happen.

Q 222

Iain Wright: The Bill abolishes the YPLA and takes the functions and powers in-house, centralising them with the Secretary of State. Through discussions with the Department, are you required to reduce your head count prior to those powers going in-house?

Peter Lauener:  We expect that the YPLA will be the basis of the education funding agency and that there will be some other functions from the core Department itself that will be placed with the education funding agency. However, the vast majority of the posts will be from the YPLA. We have not quite settled our running costs budget for 2011-12, the financial year that we are just about to go into, but our major challenge will not be to reduce posts. It will be to cope with the increased volume of work that comes from the increasing number of academies. So I expect that most people from the YPLA will go into the education funding agency, but we are not quite at the point of knowing whether there will be some surplus staff and some who will go elsewhere, because we have to plan that transition in the usual way.

Q 223

Iain Wright: Presumably the geographical coverage will remain broadly similar, so that people who have relationships with further education colleges, sixth forms and local authorities now will still have those relationships?

Peter Lauener:  Well, we are a very dispersed organisation and I would expect us to remain a dispersed organisation, whether or not we have exactly the same number of offices. Again, we need to consider whether there are some sensible rationalisations that we can make that will save costs and improve efficiency. However, I expect that our staff will be based throughout England.

Q 224

Iain Wright: Finally, how are you dealing with the risk regarding capacity? You mentioned that there could be additional functions. I think that the Public Accounts Committee has asked questions about capacity. As we run up to the start of the new agency, will you take on additional staff? How are you dealing with that risk regarding capacity?

Peter Lauener:  I do not expect to recruit in the open market, although there might be some specialist jobs in the finance area where I cannot find resource within the broader Department for Education and Skills family of organisations. The issues that the Public Accounts Committee raised about capacity are in relation to handling the growth of the number of academies. What we have been doing in that regard is seeking to streamline, as far as we can, everything else that we do, to release staff from the YPLA to support the academies’ work.
We have done quite a bit of that already. We took 80 posts into the YPLA and we have probably got 130 or 140 people at the moment working on academies. So it really concentrates the mind enormously when you have got an area of growing business, a ceiling on recruitment and a drive for efficiency, and we are streamlining as much as we can to release resource. As I say, we have done quite a bit of that already.

Q 225

Iain Wright: Following on from that comment, Peter, will people at colleges—sixth-form colleges and general FE colleges—think, “Hang on, we’re the poor relation here, because all the direction of travel seems to be towards academies and free schools, and that’s where the attention of the Secretary of State is and that’s where the attention of the new agency is.”?

Peter Lauener:  It is very important that we safeguard the existing business. I can give you the picture of our existing budgets. We have £1.7 billion in academies this year, £6.4 billion in the 16 to 19 sector and about £660 million in financial support for learners, including education maintenance allowances. Clearly the academies budget will go up and the learners’ support budget will go down as we get to the end of the existing EMA programme. The budget for the 16 to 19 sector will stay roughly the same. So we need to maintain that focus on the 16 to 19 sector and ensure that there are good liaison arrangements, particularly with sixth-form colleges because we are the sponsor organisation for them. Of course, the Skills Funding Agency is the sponsor organisation for general FE colleges.

Q 226

Graham Stuart: In an earlier session, a witness talked about the need to combine freedoms for schools with a moral purpose. As we get thousands more academies, what issues could arise about accountability for schools that might have the freedom but lack the moral purpose?

Peter Lauener:  The recently published Public Accounts Committee report, based on the National Audit Office report, makes interesting reading in that respect. First, it was very complimentary. I find it quite difficult to remember a Public Accounts Committee report that was more complimentary than the one about the academies programme, in terms of the success of the initial academies. It then had some quite stern words to say to the Department, ourselves, and to academies about the importance of financial rigour, propriety and effectiveness —all the things one would expect the Public Accounts Committee to say. We have an important programme of work at the moment. We are working jointly with the academies to simplify and cut out a lot of stuff that does not need to be there. We are very rigorous about the standards of financial accountability that should be applied. We must do that together with academies. There are some very good precedents in the further education sector, which has been independent for 20 years since incorporation in 1993. Standards of financial accountability and governance are consistently high and take very little of our time because it works on a self-assessment basis. We monitor and intervene when things go wrong, but we do not micro-manage or tinker. I am looking to establish some of those principles as we take responsibility for financial accountability and governance in the academy sector as well.

Q 227

Graham Stuart: Are you confident that the direction of travel is right and will be able to cope with a massive increase in the number of institutions?

Peter Lauener:I should say that it is a very significant challenge, but I am confident that we will cope. The point that I made about the similarities with the further education sector is quite important. The reason that it makes sense for the Young People’s Learning Agency to have been given the responsibility for academies by the previous Government is that a lot of our skills read across. We have, in the organisation at the moment, skills of data handling and analysis and financial skills. We need to develop those and streamline all of the systems to make it work.

Q 228

Kevin Brennan: Do you feel a bit like an escaped prisoner who has been recaptured?

Peter Lauener:  That is an interesting question. My career has been a mix of working in non-departmental public bodies and the mainstream Department. For many years, I worked for the Manpower Services Commission, which was a non-departmental public body of blessed memory. I then had 15 years in the mainstream departments, came out to the Young People’s Learning Agency and, as you say, have been recaptured. I have enjoyed being in the YPLA and I am looking forward to being transferred back into the education funding agency.

Q 229

Kevin Brennan: What practical difference will it make to the institutions that your organisation exists to serve?

Peter Lauener:  In many ways, I will be very happy if it makes no practical difference because our objective is to offer the best possible service and the highest standards of monitoring and governance.

Q 230

Kevin Brennan: Will there be costs involved?

Peter Lauener:  I am not expecting—

Q 231

Kevin Brennan: How much have you estimated with your board and colleagues?

Peter Lauener:  We are not expecting costs of transfer. The big drive in the YPLA at the moment, as in the whole of the public sector, is to save money wherever we can.

Q 232

Kevin Brennan: So it will cost nothing and achieve nothing? That is a summation of what you have just said.

Peter Lauener:  Let me qualify what I said in two ways. First, there will be actual costs. For example, as we go into the Department for Education we will need to connect to its office platform, but we will no longer be connected to another office platform, so there will be savings and costs. We need to ensure that there is money to pay for those costs. When I said achieve nothing what I meant was that we want to maintain the standard of service. The point about accountability, which the Minister asked about earlier, is that, with the new arrangements, there will be a much clearer line of accountability back to Ministers. In my experience on both sides of the departmental and non-departmental public body divide, I have found that when problems occur there is a very short line of accountability back to Ministers anyway, so I can well see the advantage of establishing that direct line of accountability.

Q 233

Kevin Brennan: Are you sure that you have the knowledge and expertise to deal with the large expansion of academies and the responsibilities that that will bring to you?

Peter Lauener:  I do not want to underestimate the challenge.

Kevin Brennan: Say no more. We know what that means in civil service language.

Richard Fuller: I may have a more friendly approach.

Kevin Brennan: We are old friends.

Q 234

Richard Fuller: You have more than 30 years’ experience in the public sector. You took up this position just before the general election. As you mentioned a little earlier, the changes had been well heralded, so you must have had a perspective that they might be beneficial. How are changes in the YPLA going to be beneficial in the work that you need to do?

Peter Lauener:  I took up the post formally on 1 April. When I was appointed, I was clear about the possible outcome, so I did not come into this post with my eyes shut. I think the election was called two weeks after the YPLA formally started, so it was a strange and uncertain time. One of my responsibilities was to make sure that I kept my staff informed and clear about the likely direction. The big benefit from the change to the education funding agency is the opportunity for integration of education funding through to 19.
I am happy to talk about some of the changes over the past 20 years on the 16-to-19 system, for which the YPLA and predecessor organisations introduced a national funding formula. The Government have made it clear that they want to explore the possibility of a national funding formula for pre-16. Getting a commonality of approach pre-16 and post-16, when there are many institutions that cater for both—obviously, schools with sixth forms, and others as well—makes a lot of sense.

Q 235

Richard Fuller: You mentioned being a separate organisation and having a short line of communication. Would you characterise the change as a power grab by the Secretary of State?

Peter Lauener:  No, I certainly wouldn’t. It is an assumption of the responsibility and, to an extent, that responsibility has always been there.

Q 236

Stella Creasy: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, my recollection of the concerns that we raised is very different from your interpretation of what it might mean for the Bill. To be clear, one of our concerns was about accountability for spending, and the Department was already overstretched in trying to deal with the academies. What do you think could be done to ensure that we as parliamentarians get value for money through the processes that will result from the Bill, given the concerns that were expressed in the report? The stern test was the fact that you were already struggling to deal with the academies that we have in this country.

Peter Lauener:  There were two concerns raised by the Public Accounts Committee. The first was about the handling of the numbers. The second was about managing public money.

Q 237

Stella Creasy: There were also concerns that the Department was not capable of dealing with the question of value for money over the numbers it already had. This proposal will increase the numbers of organisations in that position. What can we do to address such concerns?

Peter Lauener:  Let me calibrate the challenge first. At the time that the National Audit Office did the work that led to the Public Accounts Committee hearing, there were 203 academies. At the end of February, there were 442, so more than twice as many. That illustrates the scale of the challenge. If you look over a five-year period—this is just an illustrative phrase—the managing of open academies has gone from a cottage industry to a scale operation. What we are now putting in place is the data and finance systems that are needed for a scale operation. I believe the YPLA is well placed to lead that work and then take it back into the education funding agency. As I said earlier, we have the data handling skills, the finance skills and the grant modelling skills that we have used successfully.

Q 238

Stella Creasy: But one of the concerns that we had, and one of the problems with some of the proposals in the Bill, is about the accountable officers and who will be held accountable if academies are not managing their budgets well. Some of the proposals will remove layers of accountability rather than increase them.

Peter Lauener:  The day after the Public Accounts Committee report we launched a review of financial arrangements for academies. We set up a working group with academies, financial directors, sponsors and principals, which I hope indicates that both we and our colleagues at the Department took the Public Accounts Committee report and the criticisms it made very seriously.

Q 239

Stella Creasy: That is good, but in terms of the Bill, do you think that there is a case for delaying some proposals until the issues about financial accountability and about who—will it be you?--comes in front of us in the Public Accounts Committee in future if academies are set up under the proposals, which are not delivering on value for money or will it be someone else? The issues have not been resolved yet, have they?

Peter Lauener:  No, I do not think that there is a case for delaying for the reasons. Our work will produce a simpler, clearer and more rigorous system. If the Public Accounts Committee had a future hearing about academies’ funding in general, I am sure that it would call a Permanent Secretary at the Department of Education and the chief executive of the education funding agency. If there were a problem in a particular academy that it wanted to discuss as well, it might want to call the principal of the academy whom I would expect to be the accountable officer.

Q 240

Stella Creasy: Every single academy, 400 and growing?

Peter Lauener:  No, I am saying that would happen if a problem in a particular academy hit the news and the Public Accounts Committee wanted to question on it. I am not saying that it should call all 400 and growing. There have been cases in the past when the Public Accounts Committee has called institutional heads when it has felt that standards have been faulty. It has taken the organisations responsible and the institution as well. An expectation of the form of accountability for academies is that a principal could be called.

Q 241

Stephen McPartland: I do not envy your position, having to sit there on your own when we had six witnesses earlier. It must be quite intense for you. The Association of Learning Providers has given evidence that it welcomes the abolition of the Young People’s Learning Agency. It believes that it does a lot of duplication and is a waste of money. I do not want you to defend the statement, but I just wonder whether you can talk a bit more about what you think about the move to the education funding agency would provide in terms of creating more accountability.

Peter Lauener:  I won’t go on about it, but I do not agree with the comment. I do not think that there is a lot of duplication at the moment. With our efficiency targets, we are becoming more and more efficient. Our current admin ratio, for example, is 5p in every £10—0.5%. That is pretty efficient, but we will have to become more efficient again.
The key benefit to the transition to the education funding agency is the ability to look at the whole three to 19 funding area in a systematic way and apply some of the principles of 16 to 18 to pre-16, and some of the principles of three to 16 to post-16. Let me give one example: the Government introduced a pupil premium, which has had quite a marked impact on the whole debate about funding and provision. The very fact that there is a clear figure that everyone can quote as the pupil premium is a significant benefit to the dialogue about funding.
Although there are some quite sophisticated ways of reflecting disadvantage in a post-16 premium, I cannot sit here and say that the pupil premium is X post-16, because it is a much more complicated formula. We have to have the debate about simplicity versus sophistication, and we are planning to have a public discussion about it in May or June to look at the extent to which we can simplify the post-16 formula.

Q 242

Stephen McPartland: Do you think that your organisation will become more accountable?

Peter Lauener:  We will have a much more direct line of accountability to Ministers, and I welcome that. As I said in answer to the previous question, I expect that the chief executive of the education funding agency would be called in the same way as I was called recently to the Public Accounts Committee. There is a clearly a more direct line of accountability to Ministers, and I welcome that.

Q 243

Sam Gyimah: I have a very brief question. I am trying to understand transferring powers and functions from one agency to another. From your experience, can you comment on the lessons you learnt when the YPLA inherited the functions of the Learning and Skills Council? Will you shed some light on that?

Peter Lauener:  The Bill contains provisions to set out a formal transfer arrangement, and they are fairly standard ones. If I could give a more general answer, I think three things need to be managed carefully to ensure a good transfer. The first one is good communication, which I, with my chair, take responsibility for with my staff and the people who the YPLA deals with at the moment. The second one is good planning, so that we have a clearly set out process for the making the necessary changes, including accommodation and routine things such as systems, which, if we do not make properly, will fall over. The third one is maintaining a strong focus on business as usual, so that no one suffers as a result of the change. Our aspiration is that our performance improves throughout the year that we are just about to go into, 2011-12, which will be the second and final year of the YPLA’s operation.

Q 244

Sam Gyimah: Is it something that can be handled smoothly?

Peter Lauener:  I am confident that we can handle the transfer smoothly. The transfer to the YPLA went smoothly, and I am sure that this transfer will go smoothly as well.

Q 245

Julie Hilling: The YPLA is currently regionalised. Will and should that regionalism continue?

Peter Lauener:  There are two aspects. First—I commented on this earlier—we have staff in several offices around the country, so we are a distributed organisation. I think that that helps us because we are closer to the colleges, schools and academies and we are aware of some of the local issues that may be relevant, and I am keen to maintain that. Whether we retain a regional structure is a separate issue. We could have a single national structure, but have people located in different offices around the country. I am not clear yet what the organisation or structure of the new education funding agency will be.

Q 246

Julie Hilling: What would be the benefits of regionalism? You talked about the closeness to academies. What would be lost if there was no regional structure?

Peter Lauener:  Two things would be lost. The first thing is the closeness and understanding of local situations at the provider level—schools, colleges, academies and independent providers. For example, in 16 to 19 we currently deal with 3,000 providers. Secondly, and this is also important, is closeness to local authorities. I talked a lot today about the direct functions of the YPLA, and one of our most important ones is supporting local authorities. Local authorities have the local commissioning role, which was set out by the schools White Paper. The YPLA is not, and the education funding agency will not be, a commissioning or planning organisation, unlike three predecessor organisations—the Learning and Skills Council, the Further Education Funding Councils and the Funding Agency for Schools, which were all commissioning and planning bodies. Our role is much tighter and more focused on funding and financial insurance.

Q 247

Graham Stuart: Is there not something intrinsically more risky about making a primary school into an academy? They tend to have governing bodies that tend to be less strategic, be smaller, or be a long way from the sophisticated FE colleges with which you do business. Is there a risk of you ending up with hundreds or thousands of primary schools as academies? How would you cope if a lot of them went into financial difficulties because they were incapable of managing? Who would go in and support them in the way that local authorities do now?

Peter Lauener:  In a sense, our job is to set up the arrangements for however the number of academies and the pattern develop. There have been two interesting developments. The first is the development of chains of academies. The sponsored chains are increasing the number of academies they sponsor and are beginning to think about adding primary schools to that. That has been quite a helpful development.

Q 248

Graham Stuart: You would like to see large, sophisticated chains, but there is no guarantee that there will not be hundreds or thousands of small primary schools linked to no one else. Is that not a risk?

Peter Lauener:  That was going to be my follow-on. We also have to be able to deal with individual schools, including small primary schools. We must ensure that we do not have a one-size-fits-all system, so that we impose the kind of expectations that we would impose on a larger school on a small primary school. The requirement—

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.